The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Isn't Big Ben's alleged sexual assault newsworthy. Nothing on your website, or your 50 channels of programming. Yet, if this were an African American QB this would be everywhere. Some consistency BSPN, please!!!

^^^^^

Spare us the bullshit ok?  We don't know if the suit was dropped or anything. 

They had no problem running with Kobe or Moss allegations. 

They're too busy reporting that Brett Favre picked his nose this morning.

(http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/stadium.weblogsinc.com/tmz/images/2009/07/andrea_mcnulty_01_0001_Layer_6_full.jpg)

Seriously?

Hey Rev. Al Sharpton, did you forget about the Duke Lacrosse case? ::)

Suggesting ESPN shows racial bias is RIDICULOUS....this skank is out to make a buck off of the NINE people she is accusing of this crime.

Are the 8 other suspects being accused along with Big Ben, Caucasian?....the only name I have heard so far has been Roethlisbergers.

MY GOD! The only thing he should be accused of is Beastiality!  :o

Those two people had criminal charges filed as the victims went to the police. This alleged victim waited a over a year to file a civil suit. Maybe he did, maybe he did not, but this smells fishy, especially with her claims she felt threatened by Harrah's if she went to the police.

Having skimmed the complaint and some other reading

1.  calling this suit against Ben R. for rape is a gross oversimplification.  He is not the primary target.  Which makes the likelihood that it is someone trying to shake him down highly unlikely. 

2. to gather the evidence necessary to persue the complaint would require quite a bit of time, probably with the defendant being wired and talking to the plaintiff to have evidence of a cover up.  this could not be done quickly and woud explain why the suit came out late.

3. the plaintiffs atty does not want to try it in the media. Very atypical for a shakedown.   

4. the plaintiffs atty is a reputable law firm.  Good attys don't take bad cases/shake downs.  Inexperienced desperate attys take bad cases.  The atty in the shakedown of Moss was out of law school only two years and working solo.   

I am thinking there probably is something here.

Sorry..........you can rationalize it anyway you want, but if the Pats actually do have a comeback season , Big Ben and Company is still gonna kick Tom Brady's ass   out of the Playoffs.  ;D   :-* :'(

She used the excuse of a cover up as the reason she did not go to the police. So now she is able to have gathered more evidence in the last year than a criminal investigation would have? If Harrah's has the ability to prevent a criminal investigation, what are the odds this lawfirm is getting that much more. Plus the amount is fishy.

it can't be covered because it's a CIVIL suit.  if he were actually charged with something, then it will be reported.

Law firms are often more zealous in an investigation than the police.  After all if they win they get a cut, if they lose it costs them money.  Cops don't have any motivation other than personal satisifacation of a job done well.  They get paid either way.  In a case of investigating if a hotel prevented an employee from reporting a crime, they will take a police report and that is it.  They are not going to attempt to get a witness on tape admitting to this etc. 

I think the case is bullshit and all these "investigation" excuses are bullshit as well. The speculation going on in this thread is overwhelming.

The speculation that she is not lying is not different than the speculation that she is and that the complaint filed is bullshit. 

The whole reason, I have a job.... :D modified to add, Police investigate to make arrests,prosecutors investigate to get convictions..Sounds simple huh?  :D

My initial reaction is sounds like gold diggers,and being there isn't anything criminal,it really makes me feel that way...

Here is the reason it took so long to file........


Apparently to serve a defendant in NV the defendant has to be in the state.  (I thought all states had a process to serve out of state defendants, certainly most do.)

If she served the other defendants first, Big Ben may have choose never to visit NV to avoid the lawsuit.  So they had to wait until he came for his annual golf (and fuck) visit.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2009-07-22/final-answer-roethlisberger-case-could-be-months-away

Didn't they cover it when Bill Bellichick's mistress' husband was suing him? That's a civil case.

They also covered the Roberto Alomar civil suit.

Are you kidding me? A major casino is not going to risk the bad publicity and possible run in with the gaming commision by covering up a rape. They have nothing to gain by the cover up and a lot to lose.
Because she refused to go to the hospital, there is no proof that they even had sex. It is her word against his. His lawyers are going to dig into her life to destroy her credibility and it will ruin her. So will the hotel, and I guarantee that they will have much higher power law firms than she will.

He admits they had sex.  Denies it was non-consenual.  So she doesn't need to prove sex. 

I've searched long and hard for any reports of this, but every single instance lead back to a tmz.com claim that someone claims that Roethlisberger claims it was purely consensual. By my count, that's third hand information and deep into hearsay territory.

Right there they need to cuff him up for beastiality.  When your a Superbowl winning QB you need to have standards.

These Chicks are getting ruthless though. Lately they are either shooting you in the head or stabbing you in the back.............. :P

Even if he did admit they had sex, the burden shifts from him to her to prove she was raped. What physical evidence is there? This is going to be a he said/she said case just like Kobe's. Now the lawyers on both sides will have to destroy the other sides credibility. Roll the dice.

but this is a civil case, not as difficult to prove (case and point see: OJ Simpson)

They say cases are won and lost with jury selection..... that couldn't have been more true in OJ's criminal trial vs his civil trial

Having just watched his press conference I am full confident he is guilty.

He called the allegations false and reckless. 

What he did not do was either state that it was consenual sex nor state that they did not have sex at all.  His failure to state either of those leads me to believe his attys want to leave their options open. 

If I was him he has already said more than I would. Why even give a response at all? Just go to court.

Sounds like you kmow The Steelers are the Team to beat and you are just wishing more distractions on him.  ::)

What you're describing is not hearsay by federal standards. If a witness recounts a party's statement (or even the statement of a party's agent), it's an admission, and not subject to the hearsay exclusion.

Look @ (D)(2): http://expertpages.com/federal/a8.htm

-------

I wish Ben hadn't responded in the way he did. He's gotta feel emotionally twisted on the inside over this matter - not something you need right before training camp - so I can understand why he did it. However, were I his lawyer, I would've recommended a much calmer, cooler statement and pace. Something  more like, "These charges are false, and that will be born out in court (or "in due time") by relevant testimony and other forms of evidence. As for me, I will (or "must") continue to focus on my on-the-field duties, and guarantee that this incident will not affect my performance in any way. Thank you."

In essence, I realize Ben called the charges false by calling them reckless. But most people don't know the legal meaning of that term, and so its meaning was probably lost on most.

I do think Hoodie's point is interesting. Are his lawyers leaving open the possibility of admitting some sort of non-consensual sexual contact between the two? He didn't come right out and say they were false, right? I think I'd try to roll the dice and bet on his celebrity and appeal winning over the jury, were the evidence 50-50. Then again, such decisions are up to Ben and Ben alone. Man. I hope these charges aren't true.

Myabe becuase his attorneys know that the hotel is going to destroy her and any credibility she has.

If it was Tom Brady it would have been on ESPN.  ;D

It is hearsay. I consider us the court (not tmz.com) and thus we're not hearing direct testimony of someone hearing a conversation. I don't consider reporters to be purveyors of truth, so the reporter doing the story must certainly be taken into account when considering the "closeness" to the source.

If the source came forward and told his story in front of all, THEN it would not be hearsay. What we're getting is some reporter claiming that some source only he knows is telling him that Roethlistberger told him something.

In fact, it's not even completely clear that the source told the reporter that he had it directly from Roethlisberger. The source just claimed to know that Roethlisberger "insisted it was purely consensual". Nothing about how the source had his (or her) information. That part could have been first hand or third hand, for all we know. (Even if it were first hand, the report would still be hearsay, as argued above).


I haven't listened to his statement, but media are reporting him as having said (among other things): "The allegations against me are reckless and false"

Me thinks fro has a better handle on the FRE than SCFinfan.  Although I would be a bit loser FRO, if TMZ (or other media) had a direct quote from a named source I would not consider it hearsey.  (still inadmissable in court, but I would treat TMZ as the stenogropher then.